Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1054603241-scaled

Media launders hawks’ absurd claims that John Kerry spilled secrets to Iran’s foreign minister

It’s easy to distract Washington reporters from the realities of high stakes diplomacy.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The United States is engaging in diplomacy with Iran so that means it’s silly season once again in Washington. 

The latest episode this week originated from a Sunday New York Times article reporting on leaked audio to the Saudi owned Persian news outlet Iran International of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif discussing behind-the-scenes intrigue of Iranian politics and power.

The highlight of this leaked audio was Zarif’s supposedly controversial comments about Iran Revolutionary Guards Corps General Qassam Suleimani, whom the U.S. military assassinated last year.

But buried toward the end of the piece, the Times reported: “Former Secretary of State John Kerry informed [Zarif] that Israel had attacked Iranian interests in Syria at least 200 times, to his astonishment, Mr. Zarif said.”

Assuming Zarif is telling the truth — it’s entirely possible he is not, and Kerry himself has since denied that any such conversation took place — Kerry had informed Zarif of events that had already taken place. Moreover, the media has been reporting on these kinds of attacks since at least 2013, and the Israelis themselves acknowledged their role in them back in 2018

But, facts and logic be damned, right-wing media quickly picked up on this particular passage and went crazy, allegeding that Kerry had revealed “Israeli covert operations” and that he was “‘ratting out’ our allies.” 

It’s to be expected that right-wing media would go nuts and seize on this opportunity to attack President Biden and any sort of diplomatic outreach to the Iranians. 

But then hawks on Capitol Hill kicked into gear and reporters there couldn’t help themselves but take the bait. 

Politico ran with the sensational “GOP tears into Kerry amid Iran controversy” headline, and relayed wild claims like “[p]eople are talking about treason.” There was very little skepticism about the claims, other than saying “Zarif’s version of events has not been independently corroborated,” and noting in passing that the attacks were revealed years ago.

But Politico still wondered whether Kerry “revealed the Israeli operations to Zarif before they were publicly reported by Israel itself in 2018.”

The Hill followed suit. “Kerry faces calls to step down over leaked Iran tapes,” its headline reads, later relaying one GOP lawmaker’s claim that Kerry should be “prosecuted.” 

While, unlike Politico, the Hill piece was more explicit in pointing out that these attacks had been previously made public, it’s quite astonishing that mainstream reporters have been so warped by hysterical partisan mania, particularly when it comes to Iran, that they would speculate and/or relay unsubstantiated claims that John Kerry — a former U.S. senator, Democratic presidential nominee, and secretary of state — would play fast and loose with U.S. intelligence in such a way, particularly in a conversation with Iran’s foreign minister. 

But they’re also missing the bigger picture here. None of these stories pointed out that Iran International — the London-based Persion news outlet that the Zarif tapes were originally leaked to — was, according to a Wall Street Journal report in 2019, funded and helped launched by “individuals connected to the Saudi royal court.” 

It’s well-known that Saudi Arabia — like Israel and the United Arab Emirates — strongly opposes the Iran nuclear deal and the United States’ re-entry into it. Therefore, it’s likely that this leak, along with other acts like the recent attack on an Iranian nuclear facility allegedly carried out by Israel, is part of a campaign to gum up the talks between Iran, the United States, and other world powers on restoring the 2015 accord. 

It’s a shame that reporters in Washington who should know better can’t see what’s actually going on here, and seemingly without hesitation get caught up in the distraction and take the bait. Thankfully it appears that those tasked with working on a return to the JCPOA aren’t. 


Photo: Alexandros Michailidis via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.